Major highway projects take about 13 years from
initiation to completion -- too long to counteract any recession. But at
least they create a legacy that can improve the economic environment
for decades to come...

Moreover, an infrastructure resurgence is desperately needed.
Americans now spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, a figure
expected to double by 2020. The U.S. population is projected to
increase by 50 percent over the next 42 years. American residential
patterns have radically changed. Workplaces have decentralized.
Commuting patterns are no longer radial, from suburban residences to
central cities. Now they are complex weaves across broad megaregions.
Yet the infrastructure system hasn't adapted.

The smart thing to do is announce a short-term infrastructure
initiative to accelerate all those repair projects that can be done
within a few years. Then, begin a long-term National Mobility Project.

Create a base-closings-like commission to organize federal
priorities (Congress has forfeited its right to micromanage).
Streamline the regulations that can now delay project approval by five
years. Explore all the new ideas that are burgeoning in the
transportation world -- congestion pricing, smart highways, rescue plans
for shrinking Midwestern cities, new rail and airplane technologies.
When you look into this sector, you see we are on the cusp of another
transportation revolution.

A mobility project would dovetail with the energy initiatives both
presidential candidates have offered. It would benefit from broad
political support from liberals and business groups alike. It would
rebalance this economy, so there is more productive weight to go along
with Wall Street wizardry.

For some reason, this makes Ryan, whose blogging is usually very well measured (as well as quite brilliant), go postal:

So, please, let's not pretend that a 14% increase in government
spending has been all about stimulus packages, okay? And really, why in
god's name does Brooks think he knows the first thing about whether
stimulus does or does not work? All stimulus plans work, to some
extent-$100 billion in spending or tax cuts doesn't just vanish.

The
question is how well
such plans work (and there's data available!), and how efficiently they
can be crafted. These subtleties are seemingly lost on Op-Ed Doofus.
But having accepted that the world is going to pass another round of
stimulus, despite the rhetorical power of his inane, uninformed
babbling, he suggests that infrastructure is the way to go. Which we
can all get behind. Unfortunately, he immediately starts writing about
more stuff he doesn't understand, namely, transportation economics . . . Now, perhaps I ought to read this charitably, as the harmless
urgings of a writer who really wants us to build a better America. I'll
leave it to you all to do that on your own time. To me, it sounds like
Brooks really wants to make it easier to build a bunch of highways.
Commuting patterns have changed, you see (in response to what, I
wonder?), and transportation hasn't kept up. Plus we have to reduce
congestion (which has grown in response to what, I wonder?), and
somehow this would all "dovetail with the energy initiatives both
presidential candidates have offered." O RLY?

Look, a broad project to improve the nation's infrastructure is very
desirable. We should be spending a half a trillion dollars on this. But
if we approach this effort from the position of willful ignorance that
has created so many transportation problems, then we're not helping
anyone. So let's review a few things, shall we?

Induced demand is no joke. If you build new infrastructure people
will come, so it's important to think about where you'd like the people
to go when you build new infrastructure. A massive wave of highway
construction will push people outward. It will increase commuting
times, and in the long-run it will increase congestion. It will
increase energy demand, because no matter how you power your car,
longer trips mean more energy consumed. In the short-run, it will mean
an increase in dependence on fossil fuels. It will massively increase
maintenance costs. If you think caring for today's highway network is
expensive, then just try doubling it in size. If we try to accommodate
a 50% increase in the country's population with entirely
auto-dependent, horizontal growth, then we're all going to end up
miserable and poor.

This is, quite frankly, the stupid way to think about
transportation. Brooks did mention congestion tolling. The use of
congestion pricing would immediately solve the congestion problem while
raising billions of dollars that could be used for reinvestment in the
nation's transportation systems. Instead of building more roads, we
could focus on maintaining the ones we've got, and on upgrading the
busiest corridors within and between cities to faster, greener, higher
capacity transit and rail systems. That's how you tackle multiple
problems at once. Make that shift, and you reduce maintenance costs,
reduce congestion, reduce energy use, and increase economic
productivity.

The downside is that there's a higher up-front capital cost. But that's a good
thing, given that we're also talking about stimulus, correct? Right
now, when we need to spend the money, and when government borrowing is
fairly cheap, we should be investing a great deal in these projects.
Then later, when the economy is rolling along and we want to reduce
spending, we'll have an infrastructure that will allow us to do it.

For starters, Brooks's statement about stimulus doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. The point of stimulus is to use the government to artificially expand aggregate demand by borrowing at fairly low interest rates and spending the money. The problem is, if you send out checks, most of the checks seem to get saved, which creates a closed, useless cycle. And spending, other than through channels like unemployment and welfare benefits which already have well defined and rapid cash-transfer mechanisms, take so long to get off the ground that they rarely come until it is too late. Monetary stimulus is faster and usually more effective, unless you are, as we are now, in some kind of liquidity crisis where banks won't lend. It is dispreferred mainly because it too needs to be applied early, and politicians have little control over it. This being about what Brooks says, in somewhat less technical language.

The rest of the column does not actually seem to be at odds with Avent's overheated rhetoric. Brooks did not, to be sure, stand on his chair screaming "Spend it all on trains, you fools! You'll kill us all!" But spending it all on trains is first of all, not politically very likely, second of all, inappropriate to the many sparsely populated areas of the United States, and third, not desireable according to most of the experts I've talked to, not least because things have to get from the trains to other places. If we want to, for example, expand our freight rail, this may imply more highways to rail hubs.

Perhaps I'm just prejudiced because my father, a rock-ribbed Democrat and HUGE rail buff who sat on the Senate's recent commission on surface transporation finance, emailed me a loving note about that column this morning, saying that it read as if he'd been eavesdropping on the commission. But even beyond that, the very worst you can say about Brooks' column is that it's not as gung ho about stimulus and rail as Ryan is. I respect both of Ryan's positions, while disagreeing with them, but Brooks' positions are well within even the center-left mainstream. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what there is in there to get angry about--unless you're a hard libertarian who hates any and all government spending.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

No other place mixes affordability, opportunity, and wealth so well. What’s its secret?

If the American dream has not quite shattered as the Millennial generation has come of age, it has certainly scattered. Living affordably and trying to climb higher than your parents did were once considered complementary ambitions. Today, young Americans increasingly have to choose one or the other—they can either settle in affordable but stagnant metros or live in economically vibrant cities whose housing prices eat much of their paychecks unless they hit it big.

The dissolution of the American dream isn’t just a feeling; it is an empirical observation. In 2014, economists at Harvard and Berkeley published a landmark study examining which cities have the highest intergenerational mobility—that is, the best odds that a child born into a low-income household will move up into the middle class or beyond. Among large cities, the top of the list was crowded with rich coastal metropolises, including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, and New York City.